Bard's Tale IV External News Thread

[IHaveHugeNick]

I find it a bit odd that you mention Gothic when you mention role-playing features, a game where you don't create a character and are stuck playing ONE (and only one) character who is completely pre-set with his own personality, gender, appearance, race and so on already chosen for you.

You also shape who he is and how he'll be through gameplay, as opposed to creating it artificially in character screen and being stuck with it.

[Gizmo]

For an NPC, that's different.

What's different about it? (that matters)
A PC and an NPC can both be too weak to lift something; both be paralyzed by spells (of fear, enforced will, enforced friendship; or turned to stone.)
What is different from a PC ~with necrophobia, and an NPC with the same hang-up? I don't see any difference, because they are both (presumably) human(oids) with mortal limits to mind and body.

Now... If the game doesn't support a complex PC ~well, I'm not advocating roleplay by standing guard in Oblivion pretending to be a guard; I just find the less complex RPG's to be lesser RPGs; and I'm fully aware that some are intended to be that way.

That precisely is role play. You are the character. You make their choices for them, within the construct and ruleset that the game provides.

I would never ~have never, considered ever playing an RPG as the character, and I do tend to look [way] down on RPGs that encourage that over roleplaying.

If the character sheet lists reasons to refuse a command (like fear of undead, or fixed ethical alignment), then I'd say that there should be at least a check to see if they cannot comply, or that they comply with penalties to their actions; because they'd be doing it under stress or duress.

In a game that provides such provides abilities and a character attribute such as 'fear', then the game has already allowed that a command that can be carried out - fear is now an aspect of gameplay for the character, and so yes - "if the character sheet lists [weaknesses] like fear of undad or ethical alignment" then that's an aspect I'd take into consideration when making decisions for my character.

This is news? This is self evident is it not? (Was it not?)

We are saying those shouldn't be an option in this Bard's Tale. Shouldn't be listed on the character sheet in the first place.

Recall that the original post was of suggestions and features from RoA, that I would like to see in the game. ; and more complex PCs were among them.

The game has no means of knowing the PC personalities ~except for the character sheet; and if it's on the character sheet, it should have an effect.

Sure, because it's on the character sheet.
We don't want it on the character sheet

And I was talking about RPGs in general; and how BT4 looks to be a modernized RoA of a sort, and how I would have liked a bit more complexity to the PCs.

Back to the example of stealing - you were basically saying every character/class should list thievery on the character sheet...

Of course not ~how the hell? No.

Do you mean that's why you do it, or that that's why the player does it? I would say that the entire point of roleplaying is polar opposite to "My desires are their desires".

Then that may be the disconnect... Role playing really is "you are the character". You seem to be looking at it more like "you are playing chess with autonomous pieces"

No it is not. Roleplaying is extrapolation of a native's behavior... not taking their place in the situation. Not Costume Quest. (Yes you are ~essentially playing with chessmen, in the sense that a Knight can only act as a knight, and not as a bishop.)

The character is there, the player is not, and the player's only influence in the game should be what is achievable to the PC. If the player wants to con their way into the thieves guild, but the PC lacks the knack of a credible liar, then the player should not be allowed to access the thieves guild by that character using that tactic ~the PC is incapable of pulling it off.

Ideally, it should always play like one of those claw machines that one sees in the supermarkets. The world is the inside of it, and the PC is the claw. What the player manages to change, must always depend on the agency of the implement ~in this case the claw; in RPGs its the PC(s).

Ideally it's this:


And not this:

[Crosmando]

What does that have that is at all counter to roleplaying? A roleplaying game needs but a good role to play; where it comes from is insignificant. Witcher is [also] a superb roleplaying game; as is Planescape:Torment.

Linear choose-your-own-adventure books intercut with bad combat are RPG's now? What if I don't want to play as The Nameless One or Geralt of Rivia? What do those games offer me then?

[Gizmo]

What does that have that is at all counter to roleplaying? A roleplaying game needs but a good role to play; where it comes from is insignificant. Witcher is [also] a superb roleplaying game; as is Planescape:Torment.

Linear choose-your-own-adventure books intercut with bad combat are RPG's now?

The best RPGs on the market.

What if I don't want to play as The Nameless One or Geralt of Rivia? What do those games offer me then?

Nothing.
But that is as it should be, no? Not every game is for everyone; nor should it ever be.
It is the worst disservice to all gamers ~yet invented; to try to broaden tightly focused games [and even genres] into blockbuster crap-fests that are just [barely] tolerable enough for all ~to buy; but none to truly enjoy to the fullest; for you cannot be the best that can be when shooting for multiple targets with one shot (to hit the bullseye in one, is to miss the other two completely)... All you can hope for is mediocre overlap to try to rope everyone.

[Crosmando]

If that's the case I think I hate "RPGs".

Your problem is that you think "RPG" is one monolithic genre instead of a very broad category containing many different sub-categories, including dungeon crawlers. It's pure arrogance to think that things which work in Fallout or Witcher are objective universally good things which can be applied to any type of CRPG no matter how different. Until you learn that 80's (and early 90's) dungeon crawling "blobbers" are their own unique genre with their own rules I don't think it's worth even discussing the matter with you.

[Crosmando]

It is the worst disservice to all gamers ~yet invented; to try to broaden tightly focused games [and even genres] into blockbuster crap-fests that are just [barely] tolerable enough for all ~to buy; but none to truly enjoy to the fullest; for you cannot be the best that can be when shooting for multiple targets with one shot (to hit the bullseye in one, is to miss the other two)... All you can hope for is mediocre overlap to try to rope everyone.

And yet, that's exactly what you're doing to Bard's Tale.

[Gizmo]

Until you learn that 80's (and early 90's) dungeon crawling "blobbers" are their own unique genre with their own rules I don't think it's worth even discussing the matter with you.

Until? I already know that; I've argued that... They don't usually even qualify as RPGs; they are wonderful puzzle games, with characters that permit further exposure to more puzzles ~not roleplaying how they would react in every situation.

And yet, that's exactly what you're doing to Bard's Tale.

What exactly am I doing? (Think about it first.)

I posted a list of features that I would like to see in the game; I mentioned how it would make for better RPGs... BT1-3 are dungeon crawlers. Personally I would love for a bit more than puppetry in any game that can support it; but what's the point of that in a game not designed to support it? BT4 may have similarities to RoA, but they are not trying to surpass its character system.

I'll be happy with whatever they make... I'd be happiest if they fleshed out the character design; though I can understand why they wouldn't.

[Crosmando]

Until you learn that 80's (and early 90's) dungeon crawling "blobbers" are their own unique genre with their own rules I don't think it's worth even discussing the matter with you.

Until? I already know that; I've argued that... They don't usually even qualify as RPGs; they are wonderful puzzle games, with characters that permit further exposer to more puzzles ~not roleplaying how they would react it every situation.

So then your problem is a rigid definition of RPG. Role-playing in a dungeon crawler can be simply that each character/class plays a specific role in the party, the Warrior holds the front line, the Cleric heals, the Wizard does damage, etc. Role-playing does not always mean a strictly story-driven experience, in the case of a blobber it's about combat.

[Gizmo]

So then your problem is a rigid definition of RPG. Role-playing in a dungeon crawler can be simply that each character/class plays a specific role in the party, the Warrior holds the front line, the Cleric heals, the Wizard does damage, etc. Role-playing does not always mean a strictly story-driven experience, in the case of a blobber it's about combat.

No. My problem is that RPG doesn't mean anything anymore... It's like asking for Coke, and getting whatever soda they happen to have. Studios tack on "RPG" now, as a hook to get folks to buy it... whether or not there is any roleplaying in it at all.

These days it seems like NOLF 1 & 2 would qualify to the masses as RPGs; perhaps even Blood or Duke Nukem. We know that Id sold DOOM-RPG.

[Crosmando]

Ehhh, if it has a leveling system, experience points, skills/attributes/hitpoints etc that go up, I'd be willing to concede it's an RPG. Being an RPG doesn't make it a good game, there's such a thing as a bad RPG.

[Gizmo]

Ehhh, if it has a leveling system, experience points, skills/attributes/hitpoints etc that go up, I'd be willing to concede it's an RPG. Being an RPG doesn't make it a good game, there's such a thing as a bad RPG.

That doesn't make an RPG; that doesn't make a bad RPG.

Those games are on rails, and the narrative doesn't change [afaIk]. They are also all shooter games.

You would consider a game an RPG if the player can make any choice at all, and nothing binding comes of it?
(Those games don't give any choices btw.)

[Crosmando]

Ehhh, if it has a leveling system, experience points, skills/attributes/hitpoints etc that go up, I'd be willing to concede it's an RPG. Being an RPG doesn't make it a good game, there's such a thing as a bad RPG.

That doesn't make an RPG; that doesn't make a bad RPG.

Those games are on rails, and the narrative doesn't change [afaIk].

So? "Role-playing" is choose-your-own-adventure-style dialogue options and branching plot now? There are plenty of RPGs which are completely linear, you start at the highest level of the dungeon and go down each level, with basically zero narrative (roguelikes go under this category too). These are undoubtedly RPGs.

When you try to define RPG (probably an impossible goal regardless) the common features are always a progression system like levelling where stats increase relative to the world, you get experience points by killing enemies or completing tasks.

Sorry but the more I speak with you Gizmo, the more I get the impression your one of those "RPG's didn't exist till 1997" arrogant people from NMA or RPGCodex.

[Gizmo]

So? "Role-playing" is choose-your-own-adventure-style dialogue options and branching plot now?

To what end? What's the point of choices if nothing comes of it? (Bioware gets flak for that... Dialog trees with options that are basically meaningless, as the end result is the same.)

When you try to define RPG (probably an impossible goal regardless) the common features are always a progression system like levelling where stats increase relative to the world, you get experience points by killing enemies or completing tasks.

Not all RPGs have these; and some full on shooters have these. I'd say that most RPGs do, but I would not say that these indicate RPGs; any more that having horns & hooves means it's a goat.

Sorry but the more I speak with you Gizmo, the more I get the impression your one of those "RPG's didn't exist till 1997" arrogant people from NMA or RPGCodex.

I don't ascribe to that. (I've never even heard that one before.)

**It is certainly the case that specific games have a scope to them. A.D.O.M. is a great Rogue-like, and has quite a character setup; and even eulogizes the PC when they die. It also CRC protects its save game to prevent tampering, and deletes it when the PC dies; a game after my own heart.

[Crosmando]

The vast majority of RPG's do not have branching narrative. So defining an RPG as a game where you can alter the narrative is just wrong.

[Gizmo]

The vast majority of RPG's do not have branching narrative. So defining an RPG as a game where you can alter the narrative is just wrong.

Majority rules? Seriously? Doesn't that mean that the average effort becomes the definitive effort? (Isn't that just wrong? ~too)

We need a new thread for this, and to ask for a chunk of text transfer.
How about we let it lie for a few weeks while we chew through the tidbits that Brian and the others let fall on the Twitch stream?

I asked him about pop-up monsters or wandering ones, and he seemed decided on the wandering kind.

[jrodman]

Have to agree that characters as independent agents is clearly not in the RPG tradition. You can certainly see how it's a ridiculous concept in the tabletop tradition, and while computer RPGs have certainly drifted from that in a variety of ways, having the characters argue with the human player is kind of far afield.

[Gizmo]

You can certainly see how it's a ridiculous concept in the tabletop tradition...

One can with an explanation or example.

*Have you never played a table Top game with a pre-fab character? Ever played a pirate that can't swim?

*I have played PnP and cRPG's where the PC could have mental insanities, and could indeed react because of a phobia, or compulsively lie, or be a drug addict in need of a fix. I've had characters with affective disorders ~these are [effectively] no different than class limits like Clerics not using swords... even if you tell them too.

I have played PnP where the rules (in the book), include possible psychosis, like Hysterical Blindness... The PC has an 89% chance of going blind under pressure. PC's could be fine ~except they freak out if they touch anything sticky (yes that was in the rules); or see insects, or have to use a computer ~(yes also in the rules).

**I think the aversion happening here is a fear (or irritation) at dis-empowerment, or worse; taking the PC's weaknesses personally, as though their failure was one's own.

When you roleplay a character that has an affective disorder, they have it, the player (usually) doesn't. The player may want them to do something, and they cannot enable themselves to face it... It's the reverse of the arachnophobic player. When they play RPGs ~ALL of their characters are arachnophobes ~even though they shouldn't be... The whole point is that the fierce warrior is [personally] not afraid and can handle the threat. (This is the PC handicapped by the player.)

[Drool]

For an NPC, that's different.

What's different about it?

It's like I've stumbled into an alternate dimension.

This is, very clearly, an axiomatic dispute, and one that will be impossible to resolve.

What is different from a PC ~with necrophobia, and an NPC with the same hang-up? I don't see any difference, because they are both (presumably) human(oids) with mortal limits to mind and body.

Because, outside of oddball games like Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies, the PC won't have necrophobia until and unless the player chooses to have that handicap. I mean, you know what those acronyms stand for, right? Player Character and Non-Player Character. One's controlled and created by the player, and the other... isn't.

What's different from me smashing the window to my car and smashing the window to your car?

I would never ~have never, considered ever playing an RPG as the character, and I do tend to look [way] down on RPGs that encourage that over roleplaying.

And here's the axiomatic dispute. The problem isn't defining what is or isn't an RPG; it's defining "roleplaying". Frankly, this divide is so profound, I can't even find a way to state your definition, let alone start to argue it. Perhaps it's personal bias, but I feel I (and others here) are operating on a more Classical definition. Yours seems to be... unique.

Recall that the original post was of suggestions and features from RoA, that I would like to see in the game; and more complex PCs were among them.

And recall that many of us want a bloody sequel that's true to the originals. "Innovation" was tried with WL2, and we saw how that ended up.

If the player wants to con their way into the thieves guild, but the PC lacks the knack of a credible liar, then the player should not be allowed to access the thieves guild by that character using that tactic ~the PC is incapable of pulling it off.

Um. Yes. We would call that a "skill check". But, you know what, if I want to try anyway? I should be allowed. I may fail miserably. I may have a rare moment of glibness. I may roll a critical success. But I should be allowed to try. I don't want the game (or the GM) to say, "you can't do that".

I had a character in Star Wars who had a MECH skill of 1D. He was pathetic. He wouldn't know a wrench from jackhammer. For some reason or another, he ended up inside an Imperial Walker. He managed to kill the pilots, and then decided that the next step was to use the Walker to help out. Walker Piloting and Walker Gunnery are MECH skills. He spent the next five rounds honking the horn, trying to figure out why it wasn't shooting. This session would not have been improved by the GM saying, "you can't do that," or, "your character wouldn't try that because he's a flying monkey and knows nothing about piloting walkers".

[Gizmo]

Because, outside of oddball games like Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies, the PC won't have necrophobia until and unless the player chooses to have that handicap.

The specifics (like necrophobia) were never the point, the point was PC personalities, and limitations there of. Players seem quite happing taking the positives of their PC, but NoooOne seems to accept their negatives as fair trade.

What's different from me smashing the window to my car and smashing the window to your car?

From your perspective, it is that it's your car, but from my perspective, your car is rented.

I would never ~have never, considered ever playing an RPG as the character, and I do tend to look [way] down on RPGs that encourage that over roleplaying.

And here's the axiomatic dispute. The problem isn't defining what is or isn't an RPG; it's defining "roleplaying". Frankly, this divide is so profound, I can't even find a way to state your definition, let alone start to argue it. Perhaps it's personal bias, but I feel I (and others here) are operating on a more Classical definition. Yours seems to be... unique.

Lets wait & see; though of course this would have to be read first, and it won't likely be. I can say that I'm not the only one, because I know from past experience.

Recall that the original post was of suggestions and features from RoA, that I would like to see in the game; and more complex PCs were among them.

And recall that many of us want a bloody sequel that's true to the originals. "Innovation" was tried with WL2, and we saw how that ended up.

So do I... but we are not going to get that; most of us realize this already.

If the player wants to con their way into the thieves guild, but the PC lacks the knack of a credible liar, then the player should not be allowed to access the thieves guild by that character using that tactic ~the PC is incapable of pulling it off.

Um. Yes. We would call that a "skill check". But, you know what, if I want to try anyway? I should be allowed. I may fail miserably. I may have a rare moment of glibness. I may roll a critical success. But I should be allowed to try. I don't want the game (or the GM) to say, "you can't do that".

I agree 100%, why would you believe (from my past posts) that I wouldn't?

This is a primary peeve of mine with FO3 ~that didn't exist in Fallout 2. It is that very reason you mention that's cause for the discontent.

**In case that you didn't catch it before (or that I worded it poorly)... These would never be hard-coded refusals; they would be PnP style saving's throws ~like even Baldur's Gate implemented. Just a post above, I mention a PC with hysterical blindness (in a PnP RPG), that they have a chance of going blind under stress... well they have a chance of overcoming that as well; they don't ALWAYS go blind. Not the same as stats... where the PC cannot lift 500 pounds now, and cannot lift it five minutes later.

[jrodman]

<snip>

This all falls into one of two categories.

1 - The game has rules that the players know that can cause dice rolls that may decide what happens. They know there's a phobia table which is part of the fun. They don't say "i pick up the knife" to have the game master say "no you don't." Any such experience is really just a bad game master, not a game feature.

2 - The character has characteristics that require the player to make effort to role-play. The player chooses to freak out over a cat because the player is having fun role playing.

Neither of these is the game overruling the player the way a videogame character refusing to do what the player wants would be. Neither involves an explicit disassociation between the player and his or her character in terms of what they choose to do.